web analytics

Category: Liberalism

Categories
Homosexuality Individualism Liberalism Metaphysics of race / sex Sexual "liberation"

On homosexual “marriage”

by Hajo Liaucius

Greg's pals

Editor’s note:
– an update of 27 June, 2015 –

It is pathetic to see conservatives invited to speak on Fox News trying to criticize yesterday’s Supreme Court decision to uphold so-called gay marriage with no other argument that “it is a sin” according to the Bible. In contrast to the argument offered by Liaucius below, the complete lack of secular arguments among American conservatives is due to the fact that very few in our times are willing to challenge the civil religion of our days—egalitarianism—and, therefrom, its epiphenomenon: the principle of non-discrimination.

Liaucius’ piece was chosen for my book compilation of articles The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (see sidebar). See also “How the sexual revolution is destroying the West,” a review of Guillaume Faye’s Sex and Perversion.

* * *

Greg Johnson and I both agree that homosexuality is natural if by natural we mean that homosexuals have always existed in human societies. The problem with this notion is that what makes a behavior natural within a societal context is better understood in terms of its effects upon a society’s ability to biologically thrive and advance culturally rather than just its mere existence. In practical terms I perceive behaviors to be socially natural to the extent that they secure the physical existence of a people and the promotion of that which makes a people unique. Given that, the toleration of recreational non-reproductive heterosexuality and miscegenation divorces the living generation from those that gave us life while denying an environment in which Occidentals can have an organic society.

Homosexuality is like recreational and non-reproductive heterosexuality and miscegenation and the widespread social acceptance of such behaviors is an indication that Occidental civilization has been replaced by an atomistic view of social relations. In practical terms all such predilections are driven by selfish, physical pleasure divorced from any sense of hierarchal responsibilities as well as a denial by the individual of any sense of purpose: as a being that is endowed with a responsibility toward his own folk or the development of an organic civilization.

Johnson says that “the idea that changing marriage laws can change heteronormativity is simply false” is, to me, a remarkable claim. Rather, I would suggest that the acceptance of the legal equality of a recreational and non-reproductive predilection that has been accompanied by a massive effort to promote such behavior as a lifestyle is at odds with the physical preservation of our people while advancing the Cultural Bolshevist establishment to greater strengths. I also can’t help but notice that the dismantling of anti miscegenation laws and the dismantling of any legal prohibitions on sexual conduct and the consequences in the form of legalizing or even subsidizing abortion have also been accompanied by massive and prolonged efforts to normalize that which has promoted our demographic destruction. In short, all sexual libertine tendencies represent a unified front dedicated to our destruction and they should be addressed as such rather than being selectively ignored or condoned.

While the promotion of yet another socially and biologically destructive lifestyle is deemed by Johnson to be “an unimportant issue from the point of view of white demographics” the reality is what we are talking about is the normalization of yet another recreational and non-reproductive sexual behavior that is promoted by our enemies because it advances our demographic decline. Since homosexuality is being successfully marketed to our youth as a hip, trendy lifestyle morally equal, if not superior, to traditional mores it is sensible to view attempts of mainstreaming homosexuality as simply another demographic tool used to destroy us. Johnson wrote: “During the whole period that marriage and family life have been decaying, homosexuals have not been allowed to marry, and marriage has been defined as a union of a man and a woman. In other words, marriage and family life have declined with their heteronormativity entirely intact. Therefore, heterosexuals bear the primary blame for the decline of marriage and the family.”

What Johnson seems to be asking is that we ignore certain manifestations of degeneracy and biologic decline while attempting to enact reforms that are unviable politically because of the climate of decay fostered by the broader trend of degeneracy being promoted by the homosexual movement and other allied forces that seek our destruction. How exactly heterosexuals in general bear the primary blame for the decline of marriage and family life rather than viewing said decay as an expression of the destruction of our society resulting from the power and institutional adroitness of our enemies isn’t addressed. Instead, that we are asked to accept such a notion seems to be analogous to saying that the primary blame for the subjugation of our people rests with Occidentals rather than those that have dispossessed us. I would maintain that Pareto’s “circulation of elite” provides a better account for our dismal state of affairs and that the long march through the institutions provides a better perspective on the collapse of Occidental marriage and family life than does the assertion that heterosexuals are the guilty party—and the less than logical jump that we shouldn’t be concerned with the political power of the homosexual movement and what it means for the Occidental remnant.

That is not to say that Johnson isn’t overwhelmingly correct in his summation of what is wrong with the establishment or that his suggestions for reversing our demographic destruction are anything but sound. However, to suggest that opposition to an obviously socially destructive trend promoted by our enemies isn’t worth opposing yet advocating the pursuit of reforms (that simply can’t happen because of the advanced state of our societal decay that has been produced by the same forces that are promoting homosexuality) seems misguided.

Given the reality that the main-streaming of homosexuality has advanced the aims of Cultural Bolshevism and demographic decline among Occidentals, I can’t find much sympathy with Johnson’s notion that the advance of homosexuality among our youth should be greeted with moderate disappointment and support. Since such behavior is simply another manifestation of the death of tradition and our physical future, I find such lukewarm condemnations no different than expressing support and disappointment about miscegenation or any other form of selfish and destructive recreational sex. If heterosexuals are to be blamed for our current cultural miasma, such blame should be apportioned to the extent that such weak, pseudo-criticisms are accepted by the advocates of our people. Accepting or not being concerned with an aspect of that which destroys us while attempting to resist our destruction in a broader context is every bit as much of a dead-end in all senses as is the faux right we justly condemn.



After the above comment was approved in the webzine, Liaucius added a second comment:

Mr. Johnson, thank you for giving my comments the benefit of your thoughtful reply. My last two attempts to post retort haven’t worked so hopefully this one will make it. Here is my response:

As I am a Zyrian[1] and the situation here has little relation to that of America, I feel that some of the differences between us may be accounted for with a bit of explanation on my part. As an integralist I don’t see homosexualism as biologically sub-optimal [Johnson’s term] but instead as a biological and spiritual element within the Dissipationist movement. It would appear that you are speaking of mere homosexuality which is like autoandrophilia, biastophilia, coprophilia and paedophilia which have always been noxious aberrations within the occidental world but rarely have they been serious forces of Dissipationism. The homosexual movement is something rather different as it represents the logical development of Dissipationism and its elevation to a protected, fashionable, legally recognized and privileged social force with the goal of destroying any possible occidental restoration by redefining family away from the cornerstone of any civilization worthy of the name into vile inversions of those things.

The various manifestations of Dissipationism (such as egalitarianism, liberalism, anti-racism, class warfare, feminism and recreational heterosexualism) have incrementally instilled the current anti-culture and have given rise to the homosexual movement. The casual dismissal of the reordering of family to suit Dissipationism is a rejection of permanence and wholly at odds with occidental restoration and integralism.

Homosexualism is atomistic individual liberalism taken to its nihilistic, yet logical conclusion in service of our own destruction. The homosexual movement is a particularly serious biologic threat as a result of its trendiness among our youth and its institutional strength.

It is said that family life is dead and that as a result the latest form of societal destruction—that is to say, homosexualism—should be ignored and the more common forms of sexual decrepitude should command our attention. This is a convenient, lazy prescription for selective inaction coupled with a wish that the broader forces of Dissipationism can be reversed, and reflects an unwillingness to understand and act in a way that represents surrender to the metapolitical realm of our enemies.

Yet even within the degenerate post-occidental world, relatively healthy families are still common and any potentially regenerative elements will overwhelmingly arise from them as they represent the only element of organicism left. The prescription that the homosexual movement’s campaign against marriage should be greeted with disappointment and blasé support is simply capitulation disguised as pragmatism. Not recognizing the homosexual movement within its broader context—as has often been seen within this discourse, while laying the blame for societal disintegration on heterosexuals—is fully analogous to blaming occidentals for our dispossession.

As to what I suppose is commonly termed “the right”—be it of the neo, paleo, transhumanist or white nationalist varieties—, they jointly represent, at best, a healthy if vague disposition based upon foundationalisms that have easily been co-opted to serve Dissipationism or an ineffectual and constantly retreating faux resistance. As I’ve detailed the specifics in metapolitical and operational terms elsewhere, I’ll leave those larger issues for another time.



Liaucius’ final comment about the Johnson affair was not meant to be published at Counter-Currents, only on this blog:

In the past I had heard plenty of claims that Greg Johnson was a homosexual but ignored them because of the great virtues found in much of his writings and because I believed that I shared a broadly similar ideological framework with him.

When I first read Johnson’s essay on homosexual marriage I wasn’t concerned since I presumed that he was engaging in an intellectual exercise that was sincere, if deeply problematic, which didn’t reflect a defense of homosexuality or an endorsement of homosexual marriage. What I did find worrying was that self-identified homosexuals defended the article along with several apparently healthily Occidental advocates who overlooked numerous, serious flaws with the rationales behind Johnson’s missive. These concerns had been partly alleviated by Johnson’s polite response to my initial retort although I was starting to realize that the ideological chasm between Johnson and myself was far wider than I had previously thought. Still, it seemed that he was dealing with the topic in good faith and I certainly wasn’t ready to view him as a sodomite or harboring a Weltanschauung at odds with the cause of Occidental restoration.

My second retort was met with the standard Dissipationist tactic of decrying me as a reactionary combined with a cursory bit about how I was a faux tough, ceding the metapolitical ground to our enemies and doomed to failure. My subsequent attempts at responding were met with censorship and the thread being closed before Johnson created a new essay praising undefined moderates for accepting the soundness of homosexual civil unions and decrying those that disagree as hateful. Seeing an alleged Occidental advocate parroting left-wing agitating was clearly a sign that something was radically amiss with Greg Johnson.

When D. McCulloch correctly pointed out that—:

Marriage is the working out of metaphysical truth. That truth (as traditionalists see it, broadly) is in the incompleteness of either the masculine or the feminine principle instantiated by itself. We marry and then work together in order to become whole, i.e., to become fully human, for want of a simpler term. It is an effort to restore, in a minor way, the primordial condition. Society sanctions that effort for the dignity and fulfillment of both sexes. At bottom, the reasons for marriage, as it were, are entirely metaphysical. All of those sodomite questions and challenges for which you think there are no good answers, are, if fact, easy to answer if you understand the principles involved: the principles that you are supposed to be defending. So, no. The agenda of the forces of dissolution, i.e., anti-tradition, including the radical politicized sodomites, should be opposed in its entirety with no quarter given.

—the extent of Johnson’s reply was to dismiss what was said as “made up rationales for justifying coupling” which demonstrates a shallow, mis-educated view regarding traditionalism and an open contempt for Occidental folkways and mores that in no respect differ from any generic proponent of our destruction. Interestingly, D. McCulloch was permitted an elegant reply [at Counter-Currents]. That Johnson lacked the ability or willingness to counter such an obvious truth wasn’t a surprise to me. More importantly, the exchange confirmed that Johnson’s thinking on this topic is fundamentally in opposition to Occidental renewal and that he mimics the rhetoric of our enemies and the reasoning of the American Supreme Court.

Donar van Holland capably demolished Johnson’s argument that “couplings” should be considered strictly in terms of the prima facie position that allows marriage to be divorced from reproduction. As expected, Johnson didn’t even acknowledge van Holland’s position but focuses upon legalistic sophistry and the notion that all biologically unproductive “couplings” are functionally equivalent because he says so.

In essence, one is concerned with Occidental humanity to the extent that one seeks to preserve and strengthen that which makes our folk unique. Promoting the legal and institutional recognition of “homosexual couplings” can’t serve such an aim even if family life has been utterly decimated as Johnson claims. Realistically speaking, Johnson is wrong as tens of millions of healthy families exist in the Occidental world; so a central element of his argument is fallacious.

He never really provided any support for his contention that the decline in family life is the fault of heterosexuals, yet even if one accepts that assertion he still provides no reason to believe that accepting the institutionalization of homosexuality can benefit our people. In fact, the alleged utility of such a policy is left unmentioned let alone supported.

As to what Johnson describes as “heteronormativity,” it is true that it can’t be undermined insofar as it’s natural in every meaningful sense of the term and will always appeal to most people. Regarding the homosexual movement in social/tribal and biologic terms (which is what those of us that care about the preservation of our people should be focusing upon), it’s detrimental for all the reasons detailed by myself and others. Johnson recognizes that his prescriptions for strengthening real marriage aren’t viable in the present clime yet he promotes the agenda of the homosexual movement which is detrimental to our people making one doubt his motivations and/or his intellectual foundations.

Is Johnson a homosexual? I don’t know and I don’t think it matters since regardless of how he lives he perceives that the very building blocks of any civilization worthy of the name (i.e., families) can be divorced from biology. He attempts to reconstruct marriage in legalistic-institutional terms which only make sense within the context of deracinated, social atoms that “couple” purely because it fulfills individual needs. That any “coupling” should be accepted socially and legally as equally valid as heterosexual marriage reflects a Dissipationist rather than an Occidental way of thinking that must be condemned.

In short, Johnson has demonstrated that he has fully embraced a key aspect of Dissipationism to the point of adopting rhetoric indistinguishable from any generic libertarian or leftist establishment proponent, meaning that he can’t be seen as an Occidental advocate.


_______________

[1] People in the northeastern European part of Russia. The squared brackets in this article are interpolations of the editor.

Categories
Liberalism Mainstream media Wikipedia

On Wikipedia

The following is Metapedia’s lead paragraph of its article on Wikipedia.



WikipediaWikipedia is a far-left and Judeocentric, multilingual wiki project, censured by an internal bureaucracy of tribal editing clans to conform to a largely neo-Marxist and Zionist viewpoint. While the sheer multitude of articles means that some pieces fall outside of this paradigm, where it matters most Jewish ethnocentrism is enforced. The project was founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, with money obtained through the Bomis pornography ring. At present Wikipedia has around 16 million articles in 253 languages. While the Wikimedia Foundation which owns the project is based in San Francisco, California, the main Wikipedia servers are in Florida, with additional ones in Amsterdam and Seoul.

The personal philosophy of its founders emerged from a supposedly “libertarian” college student worldview of Rand and Hayek. As with free-market fanaticism in real life, this ideology contained within it, the seeds of Wikipedia’s own undermining. Drawn by the desire to control the flow of information transmitted to the masses, various editors of Marxist and Zionist political persuasions, were able to secure for themselves administrative positions, through persistence and playing the community game tactfully. They proceeded to organize themselves into bureaucratic clan groups, which come together to manipulate articles with their own bias agenda and de facto run the asylum over at the madhouse.

While many objectionable forms of propaganda, utilizing emotions and epithets exist in Wikipedia; such as promotion of so-called “global warming”, the homosexual agenda, branding unpopular scenarios “conspiracy theories” [Chechar’s note: only on this one I agree with the wiki], previously dubbing eugenics “pseudoscience” and so on. The most insidious and vulgar form of bias is its toleration of hatred against the European race, its culture and history, including demonization of political groups who work for its social and economic interests. Thus Metapedia has taken on the metapolitical struggle and is well on the way to surpassing the compromised project.

Categories
Homosexuality Kali Yuga Liberalism Sexual "liberation" Videos

Gay “rights” – full movie

This documentary was filmed from the conservative point of view; not from our POV. But it’s still worth watching. The grotesque homo images are worth a thousand words.

Categories
Liberalism

Hitch had Jewish ancestry

by Tobias Langdon

Weakness-Upon-the-Goyim

Like his fellow atheist Richard Dawkins, Hitch [Christopher Hitchens] was a devout believer in the Miracle of Human Equality: he was sure that there is only one brain, the Human Brain, and that all human groups have an equal share in it.

Bearing that in mind, please examine this passage from God Is Not Great (2007), Hitch’s best-selling diatribe against religion:

(Read it all at The Occidental Observer)

Categories
Buddhism Christendom Hinduism Islam Liberalism Philosophy

On philosophical and religious quackery

and its dismal implications for the white race

by John Martínez


This is your best piece of writing in WDH up to now, Chechar—at least that I’m aware of. I don’t think this is the sort of article that will have much appeal to average White Nationalists, obsessed as they are with the Joooos, Niggers and other perceived threats, but until Whites grasp the deep mental roots of the their present malaise (specially as far as Christianity and its secular offshoot, Liberalism, are concerned) they will be like a man being attacked by a swarm of bees in the middle of a pitch-black night.

A couple of points.

First, you are right to be suspicious about “Philosophy”—have you ever considered how presumptuous (“love for wisdom”) the very name of this discipline is? I have my qualms about it too.

German-PhilosophyIn another post you mentioned the fact that not a single one of the supposedly greatest philosophers ever said something about the importance of race to the establishment of a great civilization like ours. That is to say, these guys have devoted millions of man-hours to discussing every single subject under the sun—except for what is perhaps the most important of them all from the point of view of our civilization: the fact that it is a White civilization and that these discussions are not taking place in Africa, Asia or what have you.

I have long thought about this glaring gap in their discussions too and it has made me conclude that by and large the field of the so called “Philosophy” is a Sahara of barren discussions—Steve Sailer apparently agrees with me—and the very fact that after thousands of years of endless discussions, unlike other hard fields like Physics of Chemistry, these guys have not reached any generally accepted conclusions at all, is a testimony to the frivolity of their activity.

It is true that fields like Literary Criticism, for example, are not “hard sciences” either, but even here, unlike the case of Philosophy, you have a number of generally accepted judgments—the centrality of Dante and Shakespeare in Western poetry and the aesthetic preeminence of Tolstoy and Proust in the Western prose fiction, for example, among many other generally accepted opinions—whereas you cannot find a single philosophic view that will be shared by all of the myriad philosophical schools and fashions that have sprouted in the past 2,500 years.

For my part, what I can say is that any occasional powerful insights I have seen coming from professional philosophers never are the results of any elaborate philosophical systems, but are instead simple products of common sense, and might very well have been uttered by any regular, intelligent people. So, why bother? You can learn much more about the human nature and the real world by reading the great classics of the Western Literature than by wading through infinitely boring volumes of pseudo “lovers of Wisdom”, as these guys pompously call themselves.

Second, what’s the point of leaving one superstition just to embrace another? Unfortunately, that’s what people normally do. Atheists normally leave Christianity just to immediately convert to Liberalism and vice versa, for example. What’s the point of looking skeptically at Western spirituality and revering its Eastern counterpart at the same time? That’s a non sequitur. I don’t buy Buddhism, Hinduism or what have you for the same reasons that I don’t take the Abrahamic doctrines seriously: for all their bombastic claims, their allegations are not empirically verifiable, period. If I am to embrace their patent absurdities in particular, why not embracing any other absurdities in general?

Third, what you said concerning the intrinsic despair and pessimism of Buddhism is also true, and again I had also noticed it. The reason why the doctrine of reincarnation is so fundamental to Buddhism is because if you were to embrace the horrifying view this religion has of life without any faith in a life after death, you would logically feel the urge to commit suicide. People who convert to Buddhism have to be convinced to stay alive by means of inculcating in them a belief in reincarnation; and in the hope of not reincarnating by means of following the eightfold path in order to reach Nirvana and not to reincarnate anymore.

Well, any non mentally deranged person can see the madness of such a set of ideas. But unfortunately, all religious systems are ultimately as crazy as Buddhism. All you have to do is to boil their pompous, self-righteous talk down to its bottom lines and you’ll see what their proponents are really talking about.

bosch_last-judgement

Christians, for example, love to say that “God has a plan for your life”. It seems all very fine, until you realize that this plan is that you worship the Jew Jesus. By doing so, you’ll be awarded the opportunity to worship him forever in an afterlife, in a place called Heaven (apparently, a supernatural version of North Korea, with the Christian God in the place of Kim Jong Il), whereas, by refusing to do it, you’ll be tortured forever, being burned in a superheated chamber called Hell. It doesn’t matter how convoluted their talk, how straight their faces while they preach their ideas, or under how many pages of supposedly profound wisdom the Christians try to bury this horrific picture. The fact of the matter is that their core beliefs are as stupid as any savage’s from the Bronze Age—and arguably more wicked at that.

In my humble opinion, Whites should flush such nonsense down the toilet and follow the example of healthier races like the Japanese, the Chinese and the kikes—pace the wickedness of the latter. Shintoism, Confucianism and Judaism are simple pseudo-religious casuistry aiming at preserving the temporal social order of their respective civilizations. To put it bluntly, the ultimate goal of these doctrines is the physical preservation and prosperity of their respective peoples, so much so that they don’t even waste time elaborating on a supposed afterlife, preferring instead to concentrate on the cult of the ancestors and on practical rules of public morality. In other words, we’re talking about racial-preservation cults here. Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, on the other hand, are universalistic ideologies that see this world as a distraction from transcendental truths around which we should build all whole lives.

I’m not suggesting that Whites should create a new religion in which they worship themselves instead of the Christian God or any other non-White deity or spiritual leader for that matter (Ben Klassen, for one, was of this persuasion). White Nationalists are an intellectual vanguard of the White race and they are simply too smart to start following a new religion. It takes idiots to found a new religion (illiterate fishermen in the case of Christianity, illiterate caravan robbers in the case of Islam) and I honestly don’t think we have enough of them in this movement—at least not in numbers big enough to reach a critical mass.

Unlike a number of “philosophers”, I do think we don’t need a supernatural worldview in order to establish and maintain a stable, healthy social order. I can envision the Chinese, the Japanese and the Jewish races living far away into the future under the auspices of down-to-earth, metaphysically unambitious doctrines such as Shintoism, Confucianism and Judaism. But can you picture racial stability for the populations leaving under universalistic creeds like Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, which only acknowledge the physical world in order to repudiate it to a bigger or lesser degree in exchange for an alleged post-mortem reward of some kind? To ask this question is to answer it.

Just one more observation:

Greg Johnson once noted apropos of a Michael O’Meara book he reviewed: “I look at Christian art as merely the ideological channel through which white genius was forced for a long time to flow”, and Johnson is right—as usual.

Look, philosophies and religions come and go. But the great White art, for example, like Literature that I mentioned above, is here to stay. And above all, the race that made the articulation of the three phenomena possible is what really matters.

At the end of the day, it is for the White race that one should fight for instead of religions or philosophies “A” or “B” or “Z”—especially when these philosophies and religions are not only dubious (to say the least) but were inflicted (or at least heavily influenced) upon Whites by folks who hate them and want to destroy them.

Categories
Autobiography Axiology Christendom Deranged altruism Egalitarianism French Revolution Indo-European heritage Jesus Liberalism New Testament St Paul Tom Sunic Universalism

A response to Parrott

Or:

The self-defeating notion
of a “Christian” white nationalism

by John Martínez

So you can see that my position goes far beyond both Christian reductionism and Jewish reductionism. I believe that individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) + egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) + the Jewish culture of critique in the 20th century = a truly lethal brew for the White peoples.

Chechar, you pretty much summarized the “White Question” (so to say) in this single paragraph.

I have the utmost respect for Parrott—the guy is brilliant, and he is a real fighter for the White cause.

However, what he and other White nationalists regrettably fail to see is that a “Racialist Christianity” is an oxymoron.

Here’s Saint Paul to give the final word on the question (Galatians 3:28): “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

In passages like this (not to mention many others throughout the New Testament, specially the several ones where Jesus violently attacks the rich in a way that would have made Karl Marx sound like an elitist) you have the real seeds of the French Revolution, Communism and modern Liberalism. For God’s sake, this is avant-garde Egalitarianism writ large!

I wonder what part our “Christian race realist” friends don’t understand in the sentence “There is neither Jew nor Gentile… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” After all, if we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, how can someone in his own mind argue against racial intermixing, for example?

Matt seems to claim that Medieval Christianity was not afflicted by the modern mainstream Christian attitude towards the racial question. That’s true, but the point is: was it so due to Christianity or in spite of it?

The fact of the matter is that the Christian ethos is so out of touch with reality, so fundamentally impractical that a number of compromises had to be made by the European peoples on which it was imposed over time so it could be rendered minimally functional.

judeocristianismoAny society that wished to take suicidal teachings like “Turn the other cheek” or “Resist not Evil” seriously would be enslaved overnight; a society that wished to take at face value teachings preaching that the rich will almost certainly be sentenced to Hell and that one should not worry about tomorrow but rather one should give everything away to the poor—a society that had gone insane enough to implement such ideas would implode almost immediately.

Therefore, it is obvious that a number of Christian tenets had to be simply ignored or rationalized into oblivion so that it could become a mainstream doctrine. Being the Europeans who they were and being surrounded by an ocean of hostile populations on all sides as it was the case, it is obvious that Christianity also had to be sort of “aryanized”—in other words, the notion of all humankind being one big family in Christ did not translate into Arabs, Blacks and Central Asians being invited to move en masse to Europe and being offered White maidens as brides.

The problem is that time passes and over time and with the help of improving life conditions, all of the radically liberal/egalitarian tenets of Christianity that could not be immediately put into practice by its adherents in the past eventually blossomed into reality.

[Chechar’s interpolated note: This is precisely what Conservative Swede argues in an entry I called “The Red Giant”. See my always-growing collection of similar articles: here.]

As I have pointed out in another thread, a number of philosophers and thinkers (e.g. Eric Voegelin) have established beyond the shadow of a doubt that the deep historical and ideological roots of the Left are to be found in certain Catholic heresies of the High Middle Ages. And it should come as no surprise if one seriously thinks about it for a minute. The leftist egalitarianism that has plagued the West ever since the French Revolution and that has gone into overdrive since the WW2 neither appeared nor has taken root anywhere outside of the realm of the Christian World. To their credit, it wasn’t the Muslim, the Chinese nor the Indian civilizations that invented this crap and in spite of the nominally Communist regime they have in China today, those folks couldn’t care less about any so-called “universal human rights” that have been the epicenter of all forms of Leftism since Rousseau.

Let’s face the fact, my race realist Christian friends: the pseudo-historical figure of Jesus was a typical liberal Jew. The egalitarian cancer that is at the base of the destruction of the White race is just the natural development of a number of elements that are part and parcel of the Christian ideology.

Please tell me how can you guys tell a Black man that although he is your brother in Christ you don’t want to him to live in the same society as you? Or rather, how can you say that with a straight face? And don’t get me wrong, I’m all for racial separation, but mind you, I am not a Christian. I don’t buy for a second the childish notion that we all belong to a big human family in Christ.

Like I have pointed out before on this blog, it puzzles me to see intelligent, well-informed White Nationalists, the overwhelming majority of whom are quite aware of the Jewish question… worshiping an avant la letter revolutionary Jew who owes nothing in terms of radicalism to a liberal Jew like the abominable talk-show host Alan Colmes!

Christian race realists should ponder on Tom Sunic’s brilliant articles on the paradox of a so-called “Christian White Nationalism” that are available both at The Occidental Observer and at The West Darkest Hour. This passage summarizes his view on the subject quite well:

How can a White nationalist, a racialist, or a traditionalist, or whatever he may call himself, and regardless of whether he lives in Europe or America, successfully combat hostile and alien worldviews and adopt different methods of conceptualisation, while at the same time revering these same alien referents and the same paradigms which are, ironically, part and parcel of the same non-European mindset he wishes to reject?

The matrix of the West, as [author] Krebs argues, is no longer territorial or political. It lies in the White man’s experiment with Christianity, which began as merely an obscure Oriental cult—a cult which has absolutely nothing in common with the spiritual homeland of the White man: ancient Greece.

The answer Krebs offers to intelligent White readers in America and Europe who are seeking an exit from the modern multicultural straitjacket and the conceptual mendacity of liberalism is simple, although it will require a great deal of courage: the return to our lost pre-Christian European roots. Novus rerum nascitur ordo.

[Source: here]

A Christian White Nationalism is a self-defeating ideology. You can’t fight the Jewish mental and material onslaught against the White race while you borrow their mythology at the same time. In fact, the situation is even worse than that: Judaism proper is a sadistic cult, whereas Christianity (the fake doctrine the kikes heaped upon you) is a masochistic one. Put gasoline and matches together and you have the picture of our current situation.

____________________

Chechar’s two cents:

Thanks, John.

In the previous post I said that I would read Parrott’s article. I have, and I find that this new sort of reductionism, although intriguing, is unconvincing.

A commenter in Parrott’s article just said, “Now that you have given us the definitive etiology, others don’t have excuses to keep them from devoting their energy towards treatment.” But if that reductionism was true, how would it explain the most extreme cases of self-hatred among whites? I have in mind, for instance, those gentile politicians who strenuously advocate non-white, mass immigration in their countries when such immigration is clearly counter-productive from a strictly economic, “plate tectonics” or “occult war” standpoint (Parrott’s imagery).

Parrott’s model just cannot explain individual pathology. For instance, I recently heard my father talking to my uncle, both in their eighties, in the highest terms about José María Morelos (1765-1815), the insurgent leader who led the Mexican War of Independence.

JOSE MARIA MORELOS Y PAVON

Well, Morelos had black ancestors, like his deputy, Vicente Guerrero. It is said that as a mulatto, to avoid being called names in certain circles, Morelos covered his black curly-hair—obvious black heritage—with the legendary bandana that adorns his head in every picture that represents him. How would Parrott explain my family’s pathology, taking into account that my father and my uncle have zero negro blood in their veins? (You would have to listen my father’s ecstatic panegyric of Morelos a couple of days ago…!)

He can’t. (Just as it is impossible to explain from Parrott’s model why so many whites in the US and in Europe are saying that the white race must disappear in the melting pot.) Instead of an “occult war” I would rather trace my family’s pathologies to their staunch Catholicism and their deranged Christian altruism.

To me, it’s obvious that all mono-reductionist models have holes, and that the best way to approach the subject of the West’s darkest hour is through the metaphor of a witches’ brew (the first quote in this very entry).

Categories
Inquisition Liberalism

Is it suicide?

By Hunter Wallace

Keep in mind that Jews as Jews were never expelled from the United States, stripped of their citizenship and voting rights, required to live in ghettos, prohibited from marrying Gentiles, or banned from culturally sensitive institutions.

Contrast the United States with Spain which expelled Jews, persecuted them during the Inquisition, forced them to convert to Christianity and drove them out of the country. In the Northern states, the red carpet was rolled out for them in line with the dominant liberal ideology.

In light of the experience of the world in dealing with Jews, how could it have ended any other way? This is like a White man allowing his daughter to marry a negro and who is then shocked when he beats and kills her.

Categories
Alice Miller Autobiography Child abuse Feminism Hojas Susurrantes (book) Islamization of Europe Liberalism Psychiatry Psychology Women

A body-snatched Spaniard

I have edited and moved this entry here (see also here).

Categories
American civil war Americanism Democracy French Revolution Liberalism

A secondary infection

“No one who is familiar with the 18th century and the 19th century can possibly believe that Whites are blameless” said Brad Griffin (“Hunter Wallace”) a little more than an hour ago. In another thread on the same subject, a commenter asked:

Why are Jews leading white nations to begin with? What level of idiocy does it take to allow your nation to voluntarily be led by a foreign tribe? That’s the question.

Griffin responded:

Ever since the French Revolution—see what happened in Haiti—, the answer has been liberalism.

Yankees believed in liberal capitalist democracy and their ideology legitimized the Jewish takeover of their society without a shot being fired. Germany put up more resistance under Hitler because Germans were less committed to liberalism.

It’s really that simple: Jews thrive in liberal democracies, under communism, and other systems that substitute abstract ideology for ethnic or religious solidarity.

♣

Is Jewish influence bad? Of course.

It is a secondary infection. Jews don’t thrive in the Muslim world, China, Japan and other places because the conditions there aren’t favorable to Jews like they were in early twentieth century Yankeeland.

Yankees believed that Jews had a right to own their newspapers and film industry. They had a right to accumulate vast amounts of wealth and participate on an equal basis in their political system. The rest is history.

It couldn’t have ended any other way. See also Weimar Germany.

♣

The strong feeling that Jews are bad and should be expelled is a healthy sentiment because Jewish influence has negative consequences.

What allowed the Jews to become so powerful? The culprit is Americanism which left the native population defenseless against the Jewish assault in the early twentieth century. Even without the Jews, Americanism alone had already inspired Yankees to destroy the South.

Liberalism also inspired Britain and France to inflict incredible damage on their Caribbean colonies.

Categories
Christendom Communism Democracy Liberalism Swastika Third Reich Universalism

Aryan thoughts, white thoughts (2)

Excerpted from an article in Spanish:

In this time of loss, in this interregnum, in this night we suffer it is not prudent or wise, from our ranks, to throw the slightest criticism at the Nazi period (we should not pass ammunition to the enemy). Moreover, it is the only relevant event of our people in the last thousands of years I would say…

The swastika, our standard, not only was raised against liberalism and communism. Only today we are starting to comprehend the greatness and scope of its mission—our mission.

Villa_Romana_La_Olmeda

Ancient Roman mosaics of La Olmeda, Spain

You have to know the work related to the hardness and cruelty with which the German people were treated before, during, and after the war. And also all the lies spread by the “victors”, all anti-Nazi (anti-Aryan) propaganda circulating since then. All such History will have to be rewritten at some time, and show it to the entire world. But this will not be before our final victory. Until then we have a lot of work, especially the spiritual unity of the peoples of both Aryan Europe and Magna Europe.

Reclaiming, rehabilitate, and restore honor. The Nazi period, and its previous years, has to be taken up with unction. We must claim their achievements, their figures, their heroes, science, and art, its thought… Lost badges, flags and banners—all the iconography of the period. The first Aryan Reich in history, the first Aryan nation. We shall vindicate the figure of Hitler, his primary role in our early history, our first outing in the world. Hitler was the creator of the first Aryan State. To him we owe the idea and its realization.

The fight, which was a fight of one, is now “our struggle” (unser Kampf). Hitler opens a period that has not yet begun. He was the first. We are in the beginnings of the Aryan nation in its dawn.

Our story has just begun.

The Aryan order had not, nor it has, a universal reach but one purely ethnic. That first experience remains as a perfectible model of racial and cultural community. And even as a model for other ethnic groups, to other peoples; towards a community not of nations, but of peoples: a turnaround, a subversion, a revolution, a return to the particular and what is our own.

That ambition was excessive: that new order which Hitler announced. It came into collision with all universalisms and religious internationalisms or political internationalisms. It was a war against the old religious, economic, political and cultural order in the broad sense. It was a war declared on the dominant culture: the Judeo-Messianic religious world and its secular, political and economic correlates (universal democracy and communist internationalism).

He was condemned, he and his project, from the time he reached power. He was the destroyer, the livelier threat that the Jews and their freakish spawn—religious, political, psychological—could hear about their worlds. Someone was openly declaring war to them all!

It was less a territorial than a culture kampf what they feared: an ideological confrontation; that the Aryan message coming from Hitler could spread—his ethnic and cultural revolution; his spirit, his struggle (ihr Kampf).

Hitler and the New Germany embodied a new moral, political, cultural, spiritual order… The way of the peoples. It was the most powerful alternative to the prevailing, almighty universalisms (of Semitic origin). It continues to be. National Socialism was (and is) certainly the “third way” between economic liberalism and communist internationalism. It demonstrated in the years of peace their success against each other. The dignity and prosperity provided to the people ruined the prestige of despicable capitalism (and its consumer society), as well as the proletarian internationalism: whose domain area was plunged into spiritual and material miseries. And it was precisely this social, economic and cultural success which could have won the hearts and minds of white nations, achieving an extension of this “third way” throughout Europe, and around the white world. And this is what had to be prevented at all costs.

He had to be slain and his example (his victories, successes) at any price. They had to destroy and stigmatize him. Make him the embodiment of evil, absolute evil. And they succeeded. They defeated our first Reich, and sullied her memory.

The horrible public image of Hitler (and the Nazi period) developed by the enemy is also our image, the image of the Aryan nation—of each and every one of us. Hitler’s enemy is the enemy of our people: the one who fights him. The one who insults him insults us.

The military defeat suffered has not even weakened our “faith” and our loyalty to our people. Neither has the perverse propaganda taken its toll on us. Our genius is indestructible. Sooner or later we will rewrite History. In the end, whites, the Aryans, shall win.

Until the next time,

Manu